Infrastructure Resilience Against Technological Change (Part 5)

The Paradigm of InfraTech

Infrastructure and technology (InfraTech) are inextricably linked, with the needs of infrastructure driving technological innovation, and technological innovation driving operational change infrastructure. This relationship has been exemplified numerous times and examples litter recent history. The invention of the automobile, for example, fundamentally changed the course of mobility infrastructure, driving horse-drawn carriages off the road and demanding change to road infrastructure [1]. Even older examples of technology-driven change in infrastructure include the invention of the flushing toilet, which created a need for improved sewage systems within cities. Policy also plays a central a role in driving infrastructure and technology change, in, for example, the push for the decarbonisation of energy infrastructure and production resulting in new market opportunities for innovators to develop ever cheaper and greener methods for creating electricity [2].

Across all of the above examples, we can see infrastructure and technology evolving in symbiosis (albeit sometimes lagged) to meet new demands and pressures. However, as technological advancement has focused ever more on digital innovations, the rate of development and change between technology and infrastructure has fallen out of phase. Digital technologies, especially when entirely software-based, outstrip infrastructure not only in their rate of evolution but also in their reduction in lifespans. Infrastructure must now confront the challenges associated with physical infrastructure outlasting the digital technologies that enable its operations, and in particular, consider the almost inevitability that digital technologies may need to be replaced [3]. 

The challenge of how to manage technology within infrastructure is of critical importance now more than ever. So much so, that the National Infrastructure Commission (NIC) has published a report explicitly exploring and discussing the impact of technology on national infrastructure. Within the report, the NIC considered the interactions within InfraTech from a range of perspectives. The most pertinent considerations to infrastructure resilience to technical change were understanding how technology can create demand for additional infrastructure, create a need for new infrastructure systems, and can result in more vulnerable infrastructure systems [1]. 

Taking each of these in turn, technology can create demand for additional infrastructure through increases in the required infrastructure provision. A good example of this is the drastic increase in the number of internet-connected devices, broadly considered to be the internet of things (IoT), which has demanded increased internet bandwidth and even new network technologies that able to support this (e.g. 5G) [1].  

In terms of demand for new systems, many technological innovations have resulted in a need for completely new infrastructure. An example of this is the creation of the modern shipping container. As a result of this seemingly innocuous innovation, entirely new centralised ports and rail infrastructure could be created to enable the widespread and efficient distribution of food and goods [4]. It also resulted in many regional ports being made redundant due to the capital intensity required by the size of ships subsequently enabled by the stackability of shipping containers [4]. As is the case with regional ports and shipping containers, technology can also have the unintended consequence of reducing or causing complete redundancy of infrastructure. Figure 1 demonstrates an overview of the link between new technologies and new infrastructure systems.

From an infrastructure vulnerability perspective, technological innovation and integration into infrastructure can result in new interdependencies being created, significant increases in system complexity, and as is the case with digital technology, can create entirely new vectors of attack for malicious actors. For example, the introduction of digital technologies into infrastructure has created an opportunity for cybercriminals to steal data and even inflict physical damage [2]. Albeit slightly distant from UK infrastructure, the use of the Stuxnet computer virus to disrupt uranium enrichment infrastructure in Iran [5] gives a flavour of the physical damage now possible through poorly secured digital infrastructure. 

Figure 1 - Technological developments and correlated infrastructure system change or creation from the NIC report ‘The Impact of Technological Change on Future Infrastructure Supply and Demand’ [1] 

Hot-Swappable Technology

One of the most pressing considerations for the introduction of digital technology into infrastructure, before cybersecurity, is that of lifecycles. While physical infrastructure is often designed to last decades and has significant inertia against post-construction change, digital technologies are often evolved and improved over a timescale of months (illustrated in Figure 2). While digital technology within infrastructure is unlikely to experience the same fleeting lifecycle commonly associated with consumer technology (e.g. smartphones), it is important to acknowledge that digital technology may need to be replaced, maintained or changed during the operational lifecycle of the physical infrastructure it supports. 

Figure 2 – Diagram illustrating the difference in lifecycle length between physical infrastructure and technology.

As a result of this, it is critical to consider during the initial design of infrastructure how its digital technologies can be maintained and hot-swapped should the need arise. Infrastructure that relies on outdated or even unsupported technology might not only miss out on potential operational improvements and slow down societal progress but could also be exposed to avoidable cybersecurity vulnerabilities. Much in the same way the physical infrastructure is maintained throughout its lifecycle, so must digital infrastructure. 

Inter-Dependency and Complexity

As mentioned above, integrating technology into infrastructure can increase the number of inter-dependencies between systems and on technology, as well as increasing the overall complexity of individual or connected infrastructure systems [1]. With these factors combined, infrastructure faces an increased risk of unforeseen/unforeseeable and cascading failures. The idea of unforeseeable risks, termed ‘normal accidents’ by Perrow [6], is derived from risks that result from system complexity being so high that it becomes impossible to predict, and therefore design around possible failures. 

While these forms of risks cannot be entirely mitigated, heading lessons from other high-stakes and fault-intolerant industries, like aerospace, can inform more resilient infrastructure operation. In particular, adopting a culture near-miss reporting can help catch risks before they manifest into full failures. Near-miss reporting is used extensively within aerospace to identify potential risks and enable corrective action to be carried out, e.g. a pilot reporting hazardous debris on the runway.

Conclusion

Technology is a foundational component of all infrastructure and will be ever more so in the future. While technology promises many benefits, the risks and vulnerabilities inherited through its use must also be a central consideration during its implementation. While some risks are entirely unforeseeable, a combined approach of advanced planning, strategic technology design, and cultural adaptation can help to mitigate many risks. In doing so, infrastructure will be enabled to continue to take advantage of new technological innovations, while also being made resilient to its side effects.  

References

[1] National Infrastructure Commission, “The Impact of Technological Change on Future Infrastructure Supply and Demand,” 2016. [Online]. Available: https://nic.org.uk/studies-reports/national-infrastructure-assessment/national-infrastructure-assessment-1/the-impact-of-technological-change-on-future-infrastructure-supply-and-demand/.

[2] World Economic Forum, “The Global Risks Report 2020,” 2020. [Online]. Available: http://www3.weforum.org/docs/WEF_Global_Risk_Report_2020.pdf.

[3] Royal Institute of Chartered Surveyors (RICS), “Digital systems and technology in infrastructure,” 2018. [Online]. Available: https://www.rics.org/globalassets/rics-website/media/upholding-professional-standards/sector-standards/construction/digital-systems-and-technology-in-infrastructure-1st-edition-rics.pdf.

[4] H. E. Haralambides, “Gigantism in container shipping, ports and global logistics: a time-lapse into the future,” Marit Econ Logist, vol. 21, no. 1, pp. 1–60, 2019, doi: 10.1057/s41278-018-00116-0.

[5] K. Zetter and Wired, “An Unprecedented Look at Stuxnet, the World’s First Digital Weapon,” Mar. 11, 2014. https://www.wired.com/2014/11/countdown-to-zero-day-stuxnet/ (accessed Nov. 27, 2020).

[6] C. Perrow, Normal Accidents: Living with High Risk Technologies. 2011.